The possibility of species wide brain damage - the glitch in our evolution

[DiMiTri23]

Hello! I just joined because I've been a lurker here for a long time, and I'd like to see what you all think of this..as i think it is extremely important

 

This book has had a huge impact on my life and i think the implications for this theory (and the evidence supporting it) are ginormous. I've done extensive self experimentation and research and it seems to be well supported, which is evident by the growing number of eminent scientists supporting such a young theory. This is basically an epigenetic idea of how the hormones and chemicals in food have affected our evolution. The book is Left In The Dark, by Tony Wright. Lots of info on his site: http://leftinthedark.org.uk/

 

free online .pdf on scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4390832/Review-Copy-of-Left-in-the-Dark

 

good short summary of the theory in an article on this site: http://www.brainwaving.com/2009/11/17/377/

 

Some things to keep in mind when reading the articles summary:

 

-If there was even the most minute chance that our brains were not functioning at 100%, wouldn't the most logical thing to do would be to look into it? Tons of evidence suggests this. Our diet is now, according to Katherine Milton, 95% removed from what it used to be when we evolved in the jungles of Africa. This means we only get 5% of what we used to when our mysteriously large brains exploded in size ( we now know they've since stopped expanding so rapidly, and some evidence shows they've begun shrinking). Food is what builds our body and neural system; the most complex and delicate thing in the known universe. And as anyone whose gotten drunk, taken marijuana, or a psychedelic knows, the brain is extremely sensitive to even minute amounts of chemicals. Fruit is the most complex and biochemically rich food we’ve ever seen and its packed with chemicals. To paraphrase Tony's engineering analogy: if a car, which pales in comparison to the complexity of our brains, were to be built and fueled by only 5% of what it was designed to be built out of, would we really expect it to be functional at all? Even 50% functional? of course not

 

-There are hints of higher functioning. Like speed reading, photographic memory, high meditation states, 'savant' abilities, ectect. many of these have actually been triggered by damage to the left hemisphere. for example, there was news recently of a girl who suddenly became a stunningly creative painter after her left hemisphere was removed. There is many cases similar to this. The reason why it wouldn't emerge in everyone with a left hemispherectomy is obvious if you understand the importance of the fuel or build materials that i just talked about

 

-Countless religions and myths from ancient cultures tell tales of 'the fall of mankind' from a previous 'golden age', and employ tactics/techniques to regain connection with a more balanced and in touch way of being. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

 

-Our closest relatives, the primates, still get tons of fruit in their diet, each containing thousands of phytochemicals that boost pineal functions, neurotransmitter activity, the immune system, ect..a tomato alone has 10,000 of these.They also get roughly 3-4 thousand milligrams of vitamin C, a very important antioxidant. The daily recommendation in the U.S. these days is 53 milligrams..and we probably used to get at least 3-4 thousand mg while evolving

 

-A surplus of testosterone in the uterus has been linked with left hemispheric damage in autistic people (from what i understand). in some cases this leads to the left hemisphere becoming less able to suppress the right, leading to savant abilities. This surplus has also been linked to the ever declining age of puberty, which is where neural and endocrine development begins to slow. There is no evolutionary benefit from our thymus shrinking in response to the surplus of testosterone at puberty.

 

-Dr. Allen Snyders research that inhibiting the left hemisphere opens up suppressed right hemispheric functions leading to higher creativity, more awareness, better visual memory, and others.

 

-Just look around around with this idea in mind..pollution, deforestation, slavery, overpopulation, starvation while others buy yachts..look at this society where a state of anxiety and fear is the norm, where each country spends thousands of man hours and dollars designing and manufacturing countless devices made to kill other people. Where our genius is focused on creating these devices designed to slaughter our own species. Where people are completely oblivious to the bigger picture and how they are being spoon fed crap by the media (and fastfood) all day. I mean..we are in the bottom of a gravity well on this beautiful slime-covered magma rock soaring through space..thousands of miles an hour around a nuclear fireball (the sun) in the neighborhood of billions of other swarms of trillions of nuclear fireballs(galaxies!) and people act as if this is 'normal'!

 

Our culture is largely a reflection, or expression, of our collective psychology. And we all sense something is wrong with our society...Some people don't even have any idea of what is wrong with our system, but they sense it on visceral level.

 

The above is just some of my thoughts on topics mentioned in the book and other things on my mind. I'm just curious to see what people think about this

 

Any thoughts?

[Chap]

Well you have certainly argued it out very well, but I don't think that we can make a decision just yet. Consider the points below:

1) Our brains certainly have grown from the time that we were swinging in the jungles of Africa, but there should be a limit to brain growth; don't you think so? I mean, you can only add water to a bottle until it is full to the brim. Then the physical constraints prevent a person from adding more water into it. The 'physical constraints' in a human is the body itself. Already our brain is consuming a significant potion of our body's energy. A larger (or more active brain) would require a higher amount of energy; so there will come a time where it is no longer possible for the body to provide the brain with its necessary energy requirements, without compensating other bodily functions. Maybe if there is sufficient selective pressure, the body will find a way of doing it; but the process will be slower, since it needs a readjustment of the whole body; not just the growth of the brain as it used to be from the stone age.

 

2) Maybe the reason why our brains are not growing so fast anymore is due to the lack of selective pressure. Today, people with a very high level of intelligence are not necessarily the 'fittest' in our society. I mean, you are more likely to see a thousand girls running after Justin Bieber than after a PHD scientist in Harvard. lol. Also, people who have a lower level of intelligence don't die out in today's society. Around the world there are many people who have a lower level of intelligence, but they don't die out since the intelligent lot provides for their survival. (social benefits etc..). So Darwinism has very little chance of operating in today's society. The genes of very intelligent people and less intelligent people are constantly mixing; so the less intelligent genes not eliminated out of the human gene pool. Of course, please note that these are just the facts; I don't want people eliminated just because they are less intelligent!! WE are not wild animals, after all!

 

3) They have already looked into the fact that our brains are not functioning 100%. Scientists have concluded that this is just a myth, since CAT scans show that there is activity in all parts of the brain when we are preforming a task.

 

These are just my ideas. I would like to read others' replies to this post. thanks.

[John Cuthber]

"Our diet is now, according to Katherine Milton, 95% removed from what it used to be when we evolved in the jungles of Africa. "

Then she is an idiot.

What I eat is practically 100% food.

Not only that but because I'm a rich Westerner I can afford to make sure that it's all of good quality, properly cooked (where appropriate) and above all, free from decay and such.

Our nearest relatives- the chimps- are omnivores and so are we ( you can tell from the teeth).

[Iggy]

Hello! I just joined because I've been a lurker here for a long time, and I'd like to see what you all think of this..as i think it is extremely important

 

This book has had a huge impact on my life and i think the implications for this theory (and the evidence supporting it) are ginormous. I've done extensive self experimentation and research and it seems to be well supported, which is evident by the growing number of eminent scientists supporting such a young theory. This is basically an epigenetic idea of how the hormones and chemicals in food have affected our evolution. The book is Left In The Dark, by Tony Wright. Lots of info on his site: http://leftinthedark.org.uk/

 

free online .pdf on scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4390832/Review-Copy-of-Left-in-the-Dark

 

good short summary of the theory in an article on this site: http://www.brainwaving.com/2009/11/17/377/

 

Some things to keep in mind when reading the articles summary:

 

-If there was even the most minute chance that our brains were not functioning at 100%, wouldn't the most logical thing to do would be to look into it? Tons of evidence suggests this. Our diet is now, according to Katherine Milton, 95% removed from what it used to be when we evolved in the jungles of Africa. This means we only get 5% of what we used to when our mysteriously large brains exploded in size ( we now know they've since stopped expanding so rapidly, and some evidence shows they've begun shrinking). Food is what builds our body and neural system; the most complex and delicate thing in the known universe. And as anyone whose gotten drunk, taken marijuana, or a psychedelic knows, the brain is extremely sensitive to even minute amounts of chemicals. Fruit is the most complex and biochemically rich food we’ve ever seen and its packed with chemicals. To paraphrase Tony's engineering analogy: if a car, which pales in comparison to the complexity of our brains, were to be built and fueled by only 5% of what it was designed to be built out of, would we really expect it to be functional at all? Even 50% functional? of course not

 

-There are hints of higher functioning. Like speed reading, photographic memory, high meditation states, 'savant' abilities, ectect. many of these have actually been triggered by damage to the left hemisphere. for example, there was news recently of a girl who suddenly became a stunningly creative painter after her left hemisphere was removed. There is many cases similar to this. The reason why it wouldn't emerge in everyone with a left hemispherectomy is obvious if you understand the importance of the fuel or build materials that i just talked about

 

-Countless religions and myths from ancient cultures tell tales of 'the fall of mankind' from a previous 'golden age', and employ tactics/techniques to regain connection with a more balanced and in touch way of being. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

 

-Our closest relatives, the primates, still get tons of fruit in their diet, each containing thousands of phytochemicals that boost pineal functions, neurotransmitter activity, the immune system, ect..a tomato alone has 10,000 of these.They also get roughly 3-4 thousand milligrams of vitamin C, a very important antioxidant. The daily recommendation in the U.S. these days is 53 milligrams..and we probably used to get at least 3-4 thousand mg while evolving

 

-A surplus of testosterone in the uterus has been linked with left hemispheric damage in autistic people (from what i understand). in some cases this leads to the left hemisphere becoming less able to suppress the right, leading to savant abilities. This surplus has also been linked to the ever declining age of puberty, which is where neural and endocrine development begins to slow. There is no evolutionary benefit from our thymus shrinking in response to the surplus of testosterone at puberty.

 

-Dr. Allen Snyders research that inhibiting the left hemisphere opens up suppressed right hemispheric functions leading to higher creativity, more awareness, better visual memory, and others.

 

-Just look around around with this idea in mind..pollution, deforestation, slavery, overpopulation, starvation while others buy yachts..look at this society where a state of anxiety and fear is the norm, where each country spends thousands of man hours and dollars designing and manufacturing countless devices made to kill other people. Where our genius is focused on creating these devices designed to slaughter our own species. Where people are completely oblivious to the bigger picture and how they are being spoon fed crap by the media (and fastfood) all day. I mean..we are in the bottom of a gravity well on this beautiful slime-covered magma rock soaring through space..thousands of miles an hour around a nuclear fireball (the sun) in the neighborhood of billions of other swarms of trillions of nuclear fireballs(galaxies!) and people act as if this is 'normal'!

 

Our culture is largely a reflection, or expression, of our collective psychology. And we all sense something is wrong with our society...Some people don't even have any idea of what is wrong with our system, but they sense it on visceral level.

 

The above is just some of my thoughts on topics mentioned in the book and other things on my mind. I'm just curious to see what people think about this

 

Any thoughts?

Anthropologists take the idea seriously that things we ingest can affect the whole mentality of a culture. The most recent example I remember reading is how toxoplasmosis might be responsible for some cultural aspects of Brazil and other countries where it is prevalent.

 

But, there is obviously no evidence that ancient people were less stupid than us. All of the evidence is against it, so I think you might look closer at how you got to that particular conclusion.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Iggy

[Tres Juicy]

Hi all,

 

"There are hints of higher functioning. Like speed reading, photographic memory, high meditation states, 'savant' abilities"

If this were the case surely remote tribes would all be savants?

Some of the really remote tribes are not far off the way of life/diet from 30,000 years ago and their brains are the same as ours.

 

How would you explain this?

 

"Also, people who have a lower level of intelligence don't die out in today's society."

 

Replace "also" with "alas"

[Ophiolite]

So Darwinism has very little chance of operating in today's society.

This is a common misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. The modern environment is different and therefore selection pressures are different. What was unfit in prior environments is now fit in today's environment. That is Darwinism working flat out, all guns blazing and similar mixed metaphors.

 

As to the OP, the idea is plausible, but Tres Juicy's point about the apparent absence of geniuses in isolated tribes, living as our remote ancestors did, is a telling one.

[CharonY]

Also note that fitness is a relative measure. So, if certain selective pressures vanish, the traits that were beneficial under these conditions (Fitness >1) would drop to 1 (or below, if costs are associated with it). Other traits that were selected against (Fitness > 1) would come closer to 1 (or be higher, if there are benefits that were offset by the selective pressure).

Result is change in allele frequency. Darwin at its best (if we neglect stochastic events).

[kitkat]

You would be surprised how much time our brains are on "autopilot" and we are not even aware of it. Day to day repetitive activities allows less energy spent by the brain by putting it on autopilot mode. We are brainwashed by first, our parents, the educational system, the media, the workforce, etc so people in general do not have to spend too much time thinking when it is easier to go along with what the masses are conditioned to believe on any particular subject of interest.

 

We live in a large population of our species and all it takes is one individual to come up with a original idea that will benefit the whole species for survival so increased intelligence is not necessary for natural selection to spread it within the population. The majority in everyday society feel threatened by someone that is viewed as highly intelligent and even though they might admire them, they prefer to keep a safe distance from these individuals.

 

In history , many great scientists and inventors were treated as outcasts by their peers, simply because those highly intelligent individuals could not be easily brainwashed and were independent thinkers which maes them an outsider of human social groups.

[CharonY]

I do not think that it is matter of independent thinking. Of course there are examples, in which controversial opinions, that eventually were proven true have led to marginalization. But these are more exceptions than the rule.

 

Sometimes certain people are so obsessed with certain aspects of nature that their social skills may suffer. More often than not, however, successful scientists are often also excellent networkers that are highly skilled (if not gifted) in social interactions. The reasons is that a part of the job as scientist is to communicate science.

 

Every good scientist is expected to explore the unknown and hence, any new idea could be considered controversial. However, in cases where new ideas throw established knowledge overboard, without a strong empirical foundation to support it (an issue in inter and multi-disciplinary sciences) it is (and should be) faced with strong skepticism. Another important aspect of science is the hunt for truth. Ideas are cheap to throw out. The challenging part is figure out which of them reflect nature best.

 

In the end, it takes more time to figure out where one was wrong then to throw up something different. This is something that is plentifully documented in our very own speculations forum here.

Edited December 19, 2011 by CharonY

[Microscope.com]

"Our diet is now, according to Katherine Milton, 95% removed from what it used to be when we evolved in the jungles of Africa. "

Then she is an idiot.

What I eat is practically 100% food.

Not only that but because I'm a rich Westerner I can afford to make sure that it's all of good quality, properly cooked (where appropriate) and above all, free from decay and such.

Our nearest relatives- the chimps- are omnivores and so are we ( you can tell from the teeth).

 

She may be talking about the high percentage of highly processed foods we consume now (rather than whole foods)? Hard to say, but after watching Food, Inc. my diet has dramatically changed from what it used to be and I can say I feel (physically and mentally) much better for it.

[Baby Astronaut]

As to the OP, the idea is plausible, but Tres Juicy's point about the apparent absence of geniuses in isolated tribes, living as our remote ancestors did, is a telling one.

I'm not sure about it being so telling. It seems communication and exchange of ideas with other cultures, plus inheritance of ideas from written documentation and history, combined with a safe environment in which to explore and ponder knowledge frequently at leisure, and the influence of nurture, are factors that determine to what extent genius can develop successfully. It'd be interesting to see what happens if a child were born and raised in a "lost tribe" (100% descended from its members), but with a full library, internet access, modern devices at home, video conferencing and direct interaction with different cultures, and great mentoring.

[Tres Juicy]

I'm not sure about it being so telling. It seems communication and exchange of ideas with other cultures, plus inheritance of ideas from written documentation and history, combined with a safe environment in which to explore and ponder knowledge frequently at leisure, and the influence of nurture, are factors that determine to what extent genius can develop successfully. It'd be interesting to see what happens if a child were born and raised in a "lost tribe" (100% descended from its members), but with a full library, internet access, modern devices at home, video conferencing and direct interaction with different cultures, and great mentoring.

 

Most of the people we consider to be genious's didn't have all that stuff...

[Baby Astronaut]

Most of the people we consider to be genious's didn't have all that stuff...

The later stuff I mentioned is just a "what if" scenario. But the people we consider to be geniuses did have:

 

....inheritance of ideas from written documentation and history, combined with a safe environment in which to explore and ponder knowledge frequently at leisure, and the influence of nurture....

[Tres Juicy]

The later stuff I mentioned is just a "what if" scenario. But the people we consider to be geniuses did have:

 

....inheritance of ideas from written documentation and history, combined with a safe environment in which to explore and ponder knowledge frequently at leisure, and the influence of nurture....

 

 

True, but imagine we had a way to imediately tell the intelligence level of a person without requiring tests or other culturally or environmentally biased methods - for instance a machine that could take a snapshot of the brain and give an intelligence reading.

 

I would be willing to bet that people from remote tribes were not genius's (genii'? What's the plural?), in fact I would imagine they would be very similar to most other cultures in terms of IQ

[DiMiTri23]

"As to the OP, the idea is plausible, but Tres Juicy's point about the apparent absence of geniuses in isolated tribes, living as our remote ancestors did, is a telling one."

 

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert but some of them actually display remarkable mental abilities and even can read the jungle like a book, knowing intimately all of the plants and their affects, for starters. This is why so much ancient knowledge has been validated by modern science as actually holding some water. Like the shamanic practices involving medicinal plants in the amazon, and many other areas. If you want to see advanced previous societies just look at the pyramids, mayans, ect ect. . or check out Graham Hancock's work which goes sooo much deeper into all this

 

You also have to realize that these tribes are not all eating a fruit based diet and even the ones who do are still suffering from tens of thousands of years of hormonal retardation. The book also goes into why simply replacing the archaic nutrients nowadays is not enough for a big change. Yes it will help rebuild and fuel the right hemisphere but do little to fix the much more damaged left which keeps the right in shackles anyway. Also - if this theory is the least bit correct, then projecting our notions of genius and what constitutes 'advanced functioning' onto tribal peoples is completely arbitrary.

 

I mean..is living in general homeostasis with nature, and the local group of humans as if its one big family, like many of these tribes do, more insane than our cultures approach of blindly raping the planet of resources, polluting the land, water, and air on a global scale, and spending trillions of our money designing and creating more efficient means of killing millions of our own (and other) species? The way we live isn't sustainable for much longer and no one seems to give a shit in the first place..We have right now the means to save our planet but we lack the vision and the motivation. We don't see how our actions affect the bigger picture outside of our little tunnel-realities. This is why an Native American chief, whose name now evades me, called white man insane because they don't look 6 months into the future when making decisions..while in their way of life they try and look 6 generations down the line.

 

Of course analyzing this info with the organ that is effected is going to result in the warping of every piece of information coming in. We tend to see what we want to see. And encountering a deluded person telling everyone else that they are deluded is bound to stir some powerful emotions. Which is why we tend to lash out within our false paradigm for some piece of info that doesn't align with the theory, and then hold it up as if it invalidates the whole heaping pile of info in support of it.

 

For instance,

 

Just recently we've found that diet does indeed affect brain size http://kowb1290.com/...ect-brain-size/

 

Is it really that much of a coincidence then that our brains are shrinking? http://discovermagaz...brain-shrinking

 

What could be more clear..

 

Many people will even refuse to take a look at the data at all. This is pretty telling in itself, considering the fact that if there was even a 1% chance we aren't as functional as we once were then the only reasonable thing to do would be to at the very least look into it and check, just in case.

Edited January 23, 2012 by DiMiTri23

[DiMiTri23]

A new book project has been launched by Tony

 

Check it out here

 

http://www.indiegogo.com/Make-up-your-own-mind

[DiMiTri23]

"The scientific discourse misses the fact that the ability to deny is an amazing human phenomenon, a product of sheer complexity of our emotional, linguistic, moral and intellectual lives. Denial is a complex unconscious defence mechanism for coping with guilt, anxiety and other disturbing emotions aroused by reality."

 

- Stanley Cohen